Wakilii

Epaku and Another v Amito (Miscellaneous Application 17 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 238 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside costs order made in earlier miscellaneous application for reinstatement of appeal
Decision
Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application seeking to set aside a costs order made in an earlier ruling. The court held that it was functus officio and could not sit on appeal over its own decision to alter the costs award. The proper remedy for an aggrieved party is to appeal to the Court of Appeal, not to invoke the court's inherent powers to change an order already made.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants were appellants in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2021, which was dismissed on 22 October 2021. They applied for reinstatement via MA 14 of 2022. On 31 October 2022, the High Court allowed the reinstatement application but ordered costs to be paid to the respondent. The respondent filed a bill of costs for taxation. The applicants then brought this application seeking to set aside the costs order, arguing they were the successful party in the reinstatement application and should not be condemned to pay costs when the main appeal had not yet been heard. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicants had shown no interest in prosecuting the appeal and that costs follow the event.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside its own costs order made in an earlier ruling.
  2. Whether the costs order in MA 0014/2022 awarding costs to the respondent should be set aside and costs awarded to the applicants as the successful party.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Court's Power to Alter Own Orders
A court that has discharged its duty and passed an order becomes functus officio and cannot rehear the same matter by reopening it to deal with a matter upon which it has already made its decision, as its mandate to do so expires after making the order.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers — Limits on Exercise
The inherent powers of the court under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked to enable a court to sit on appeal over its own ruling and change its original order, as such a change can only be made by an appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Review — Proper Procedure and Grounds
An application seeking to challenge a court's order must be brought under the proper legal framework; where review is sought, it must be brought under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with arguments advanced on the recognised grounds for review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Epaku and Another v Amito (Miscellaneous Application 17 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 238 (23 August 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.